Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description only needs to add scope. It does: it declares which domains are explicitly out of scope (cobros, planes y dominio) and states the conditional enrichment when country is supplied, which prevents wasted follow-up calls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the main payload enumeration comes first with the conditional country behavior last. Each listed item serves a distinct purpose rather than padding a vague summary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-param read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what is returned and what is out of scope. It stops short of describing response shape or ordering, but the content list compensates for the absent output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum description already explains currency/language/brand/payment effects. The description still adds genuine conditional behavior beyond the schema: passing country additionally returns the brand and language for that country, which the schema does not state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb ("Devuelve") and enumerates the exact payload: países, rubros, plantillas, datos requeridos y lo que no se hace por el chat. It is obviously the informational prerequisite for create_store, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that you call this before create_store to learn required fields. There is no explicit "use this when" clause and no exclusion pointing to get_store_status or preview_store for post-creation questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.